I have taught torts, including defamation for over 30 years, but I have never seen the like of the Hunter Biden defamation case.
The defendant made defamatory statements and then just refused to appear. That led to an equally bizarre $1.7 million award by U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson of the Central District of California to Biden, consisting of just $1 in nominal damages and the rest in punitive damages.
Here is the most interesting line of the opinion: “the damage to Plaintiff’s reputation is difficult to calculate.”
It may be the single greatest understatement in the history of judicial opinions.
However, the court also noted “Plaintiff does not seek actual damages above a nominal amount.”
That means that Hunter Biden’s counsel, in a default case, elected not to argue for compensatory damages due to loss of reputation. Why would he do that?
It might be that he has little reputation to lose and that opening up that part of the case was fraught with perils. However, it also created a potential major appellate issue. His counsel was making it clear that they were litigating purely for punitives.
For Hunter Biden, this is a much-needed windfall. His art sales notably collapsed with the value of currying favor to the Bidens. He is reportedly being pursued by creditors, including for
